The Instigator
craig76696
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robert_Santurri
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is it ok to kill someone innocent to save other innocent people?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 5758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

craig76696

Pro

Really I don't have one I'm just trying to get a feel for this topic instead of messing around like I did on other topics. So show me how its done Con.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for creating such a interesting debate and hope I can show him some helpful tips. I would also like to apologize for my delay in getting my opening argument posted as school has been very hectic as of late.

Now, my opponent has not defined any of his terms or really anything. I assume I am expected to start the debate with a opening argument and will do so.

I will first define terms:

Okay - Acceptable
Kill - Murder; To put to death
Innocent - Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless. Not guilty
People - Other Human Beings (In this case, one)

Contention #1: It's wrong to take away an innocent person right to live.

Article 1 of the United Nations on Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [1]

I ask you my opponent, what would give you the right to kill a innocent person to supposedly save another innocent person?

What sort of situation would this exist in? How would be killing an innocent child for example save another innocent person?

In Round 2, I ask my opponent to cite specific examples.

Everyone has the same right to live, why is it that one innocent person takes a greater hold over that one person if everybody is equal?

Contention #2: Killing is an immoral act.
Killing is a immoral act, and unjustifiable. We are taking away an innocent person life who has done nothing wrong to deserve their life wrongly snatched from their hands. If we were to do that, we would be committing an immoral and horrible act. It is therefore not moral to kill an innocent person, murder is murder when you get down to it.

This also relates to Dehumanization in which we would be subjecting ourselves to being no longer human. What lengths would my opponent go to kill a innocent person in order to save another innocent person?

The justification of killing innocent people will also lead society down a path that is full of chaos, unlawfulness, and lots of innocent deaths.

Contention #3: Life is too valuable to justify taking it.
This relates to my first contention, Life is too valuable to justify taking it. The gift of Life is the most valuable gift we all receive and to have it taken away by outside forces in order to supposedly help save others is unjustifable and wrong in many aspects.

References:
1.) http://www.un.org...

Final Points for this Round:
I did not make my first round case too long in order to give my opponent room to not only attempt to refute my points but make his own case.

My opponent failed to define any terms, so I ask that the reader use my definitions for this debate.

Remember this quote, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The same would hold true in this situation. My opponent may have good intentions in wanting to kill one person in order to save another or many but in the end it will just lead down to the road of hell.

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate dear reader and I hoped you enjoyed my first round argument.

I also strongly urge you to vote CON when it comes time to cast your ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
craig76696

Pro

craig76696 forfeited this round.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to thank everyone for reading this debate thus far.

I ask that all my arguments from Round 1 be extended down as my opponent has not refuted it.

In the fairness of debate and in the hope that my opponent will return for Round 3, I will not be posting new arguments in this round but instead post this message.

However, I ask when you go to vote that you remember that my opponent has forfeited Round 2 of this debate along with everything else I posted earlier.

Thank you, and please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
craig76696

Pro

craig76696 forfeited this round.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to thank everyone for reading this debate thus far.

I ask that all my arguments from Round 1 as I asked be extended down as my opponent has refuted neither.

I ask when you go to vote that you remember that my opponent has forfeited Round 2 and 3 of this debate along with everything else I posted earlier.

So since my opponent has forfeited more then half of the debate, has refuted none of my points, and everything else I hope it is a easy vote across the board for CON.

Thank you, and please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
First Round Argument posted, sorry for the delay.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Hello Craig, I will be posting my first round argument tomorrow as it is 12:30 at night here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
craig76696Robert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
craig76696Robert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07